Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 22:44:08 -0600 From: Alan Robertson <alanr@unix.sh> To: General Linux-HA mailing list <linux-ha@lists.linux-ha.org> Cc: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [Linux-HA] Re: Integrating OCF framework w/ (Net|Free)BSD rc.d Message-ID: <446D4D18.9000406@unix.sh> In-Reply-To: <20060518113707.C82296@arbitor.digitalfreaks.org> References: <20060518113707.C82296@arbitor.digitalfreaks.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brian A. Seklecki wrote:
>
> On Tue, 16 May 2006, joerg@britannica.bec.de wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 01:35:51PM -0400, Brian A. Seklecki wrote:
>> [SNIP]
>>>
>>> I'm interested in any discussion / thoughts on a strategy or apporach
>>> for
>>> coding OCF compatibility / integration into our rc.d/ system
>>
>> Oh my god, another over-complicated Linux "standard" which uses the
>
> A lot of this goes without saying. However, Linux-HA is the only
> available, portable Failover Management Software (FMS) available for
> POSIX compliant systems. It's under active development and the 2.x
> branch has some game.
>
> I'm not talking about changing any default behavior, I'm asking what the
> best strategy would be to put hooks in place to easily enable
> "compatibility" mode.
>
> Adding new commands is easy with $extra_commands, but changing return
> codes requires some if[]'s in-tree. An extra couple of cycles blown
> isn't that bad of a tradeoff to bring high availability (HA) / failover
> features to *BSD.
You could also provide a different plugin in lieu of lsb for the BSD
systems. It wouldn't be that hard. Or we could even leave it the same,
but change the return code mappings when compiled with some option or
another...
This is all done through plugins.
--
Alan Robertson <alanr@unix.sh>
"Openness is the foundation and preservative of friendship... Let me
claim from you at all times your undisguised opinions." - William
Wilberforce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?446D4D18.9000406>